Allowed

T. Thammaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2023WP/5794/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a writ petition filed by a purchaser aggrieved by the restoration of land to its original grantee. The High Court quashed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, holding that a delay of 32 years in seeking restoration under the PTCL Act constitutes an impediment, rendering the application non-maintainable. The Court set aside the restoration orders.

What did the court decide?

The orders of restoration passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner were set aside.

T. Thammaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5794 OF 2017 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

T. THAMMAIAH DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

¶9

G.L. SUNANDAMMA, W/O. LATE T. THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶10

M. MAHENDRA, S/O. LATE T. THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶11

M. T. AMBUJA, D/O. LATE T. THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ANURADHA, D/O. LATE T. THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MUTTANAHALLI, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR - 571 422, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAJA. L, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶22

SMT. SIDDAMMA @ CHIKKATAYAMMA, W/O. MANCHAIAH @ MANCHA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. KANNALI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶23

M. T. AJITHKUMAR, S/O. LATE T. THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. MUTTANAHALLI, C. A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR - 571 422, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 AND 2; SRI. K. RAJSHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. NAGESH M, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.4/2001-02 DTD:18.8.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of petition land and the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶32

Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi

¶33

.vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha² . It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on

¶34

05.04.2021.

¶35

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶36

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶37

¶38

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶39

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶40

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav³ and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others⁴ has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of

¶41

the competent authorities not to annul the alienations

¶42

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶43

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶44

¶45

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶46

where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.

¶47

In the instance case, the records indicate that the matter was remitted by this Court on two occasions. After remand, respondent No.2/Assistant commissioner

¶48

¶49

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶50

entertained the petition and ordered the restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee, that is, respondents No.3 and 4 and the order of restoration was confirmed by respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner. The petition land in question was granted to one Manchiah, who is the husband of respondent No.3. The original grantee alienated the petition land to the father of the petitioners herein under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1961. The widow of the original grantee filed an application seeking restoration in 1993-94. There is delay of 32 years in seeking restoration of the lands.

¶51

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 32 years in initiating action. The authorities below have

¶52

not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5 of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has

¶53

¶54

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶55

held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.

¶56

In the instant case, diligence is woefully lacking. There is a gross delay of 32 years in initiating action. Therefore, the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner was not justified in entertaining the application. The respondents No.3 and 4 are not entitled

¶57

for restoration of the petition land as the material on record also indicates that third party rights have stood crystalised.

¶58

¶59

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶60

In the light of principles discussed supra, respondent No.2/Assistant commissioner erred in

¶61

entertaining a restoration petition. The order of restoration is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed supra. If there is delay of 32 years, respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner ought to have rejected the petition only on the ground of delay. Respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner has also not examined the principles relating to seeking restoration of lands. The order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant

¶62

Commissioner and the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, respondents No.4 and 5 cannot maintain the restoration petition as there is delay of 35 years. Hence, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶65

¶66

WP No. 5794 of 2017

¶67

(ii) The order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-L and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner vide AnnexureJ are hereby set aside.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

HDK

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

T. Thammaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Thammaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri J N Pushparaju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. K. Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bhadrappa Vs Asst Commissioner